Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I don't follow AAP or AAP members on twitter, but I did not see any press conference or a protest or a dharna or even an appearance on TV debate by AAP which was the norm till a few weeks ago. Yes, I missed the few tweets they put out. Nothing here negates that fact that Kejriwal and AAP have been nearly mute on the National Herald scam. The reason is also quite straightforward - they wanted to form the govt in Delhi again with Cong support. I don't keep a regular tab on AAP or BJP, I just found what I did by a simple Google Search query. I don't think they were "nearly mute" - they have raised concerns. Just like you missed the few tweets, you might have missed other protests, press conferences, G+ hangouts and dharnas too.
seedhi Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I don't keep a regular tab on AAP or BJP' date=' I just found what I did by a simple Google Search query. I don't think they were "nearly mute" - they have raised concerns. [b']Just like you missed the few tweets, you might have missed other protests, press conferences, G+ hangouts and dharnas too.Would be glad to accept if I did miss. But I did not find any press conferences, dharnas by AAP. My opinion is that they were nearly mute. I mean Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi were summoned by the court as accused. This is bigger (IMO) than mere allegations against Ambani or Vadra. And AAP was conspicuous by their near silence.
Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Would be glad to accept if I did miss. But I did not find any press conferences, dharnas by AAP. My opinion is that they were nearly mute. I mean Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi were summoned by the court as accused. This is bigger (IMO) than mere allegations against Ambani or Vadra. And AAP was conspicuous by their near silence. I would be glad to consider your opinion that they are "nearly mute" just like they are "nearly mute" on the Vyapam scam. I disagree on the reasons why you say they are mute.
seedhi Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I would be glad to consider your opinion that they are "nearly mute" just like they are "nearly mute" on the Vyapam scam. I disagree on the reasons why you say they are mute.AAP is non-existent in MP compared to its clout in Delhi. Compared to what AAP has previously done in Delhi (press conferences, dharnas, protests, rallys, making women urinate on road etc) it was nearly absent when a Delhi court summoned Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi as accused.
Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 AAP is non-existent in MP compared to its clout in Delhi. Compared to what AAP has previously done in Delhi (press conferences, dharnas, protests, rallys, making women urinate on road etc) it was nearly absent when a Delhi court summoned Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi as accused. I see you have once again started making up things. Given that, I don't think I can continue having this conversation.
gattaca Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I see you have once again started making up things. Given that' date=' I don't think I can continue having this conversation.[/quote'] how is that making up things. http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/somnath-bharti-s-midnight-raid-african-woman-forced-to-urinate-in-public_905018.html
seedhi Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 People have short memories: In AAP minister's midnight raid, woman made to urinate in public http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/in-aap-minister-s-midnight-raid-woman-made-to-urinate-in-public-472377
Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 how is that making up things. http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/somnath-bharti-s-midnight-raid-african-woman-forced-to-urinate-in-public_905018.html Of course, everything that a prosecution lawyer says is true. Why do we even have judges?
Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 People have reading comprehension issues Before that, "one of them was not allowed to go to the bathroom and was forced to urinate in public" said noted lawyer Harish Salve, who has reportedly decided to represent the women in a police case they filed today against "unknown persons." Btw, isn't NDTV a sickular Italian Khangress mafia channel? Surprised to see it quoted.
seedhi Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Of course' date=' everything that a prosecution lawyer says is true. Why do we even have judges?[/quote']You cannot accuse me of "making things up". It was widely reported in the media.
Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 You cannot accuse me of "making things up". It was widely reported in the media. It was widely reported that the lawyer made an allegation which wasn't proved. You tried to pass this allegation as fait accompli. In other words "making things up" which aren't substantiated.
seedhi Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Bharti guilty of 'racial prejudice' in raid on African women, judicial inquiry finds The report also stated that Bharti's "conduct was not in accordance with the law and prima facie he violated various provisions of the law while holding the constitutional post of the Law Minister". The committee's report said Bharti and his supporters "illegally stopped" all vehicles in which they spotted African nationals and "wrongfully detained the Ugandan women". "The women were detained for no fault of theirs as no drug was found in their possession or in their vehicle during the search. "It is further clear that a mob led by Bharti forcibly entered one of the houses in Khirki extension. "They banged the doors and windows of several houses and forcibly entered the rooms of the African women and hurled racist slurs at them, called them prostitutes and assaulted, molested, humiliated them and threatened to kill them," the report read. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2662817/Bharti-guilty-racial-prejudice-raid-African-women-judicial-inquiry-finds.html
Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2662817/Bharti-guilty-racial-prejudice-raid-African-women-judicial-inquiry-finds.html None of it says "making women to urinated on the road" which was your initial assertion.
seedhi Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 None of it says "making women to urinated on the road" which was your initial assertion.Yes it was my assertion based on media reports. I did not make it up on my own.
Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Yes it was my assertion based on media reports. Sorry, you are clutching on straws here. The media reports says "Lawyer made an allegation of X". You said - "X happened" as a matter of fact. Not difficult to the understand the difference; particularly for a smart person like you. Stop going around in circles, accept when you're wrong.
seedhi Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Sorry' date=' you are clutching on straws here. The media reports says "Lawyer made an allegation of X". You said - "X happened" as a matter of fact.[/quote']I stated it as something that was reported in the media. I did not make it up.Lets not make personal comments.
Crookbond Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I stated it as something that was reported in the media. I did not make it up.Lets not make personal comments. You didn't state it was an allegation. You passed it as something that happened. Difference.
seedhi Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 You didn't state it was an allegation. You passed it as something that happened. Difference.I did not "make it up" as you alleged. It had appeared in the media.
Recommended Posts